On 7 Nov 2001, at 15:40, Leyne, Sean wrote:

>
>
> > From: Woody [mailto:woody.tmw@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 3:37 PM
>
> > A Count(*) query should not take that long regardless of the number of
> > records. It is performed on the server side so it should
> > return quickly.
>
> While a count() should not take as long as the 'real' query -- it is
> incorrect to think of it as a 'no-cost' solution.
>
> Due to the Multi-Generational Architecture of Firebird/IB, a record
> count can require a fair bit of processing and as such I would
> **strongly** recommend that it not be done (i.e. forget about the count
> of rows for a query!)

Having a fieldname in count which has index on it gives a better
performance than one without index

Sandeep

Software Developer
CFL
sandeep@...
http://www.cfl.co.nz